Memeorandum

Prediction Markets

April 23, 2009

Levels Of Enhancement

Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, joins the torture debate on the NY Times op-ed page and explains that the Bush era enhanced interrogation techniques were unnecessary and ineffective. Torture doesn't work, and Mr. Soufan is today's darling of the reality-based community. However, based on earlier Times reporting and the DoJ Inspector General report Mr. Soufan is, well, misleading us.

So, the Times has run an op-ed that dovetails with their current agenda but is contradicted by other strong evidence and their own reporting - does anyone think we will see a clarification or follow-up? Neither do I.

Eventually patient readers will also find my rebuttal to Marcy Wheeler and Andrew Sullivan, who claim that these latest revelations bring down the whole legal structure crafted by the OLC memos. Not to jump ahead, but since the Soufan story is bogus, conclusions based on that story are also shaky. It's castles on sand and another day in reality-world.

Let's start with Mr. Soufan:

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on
which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants
authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking
terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t
been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods
as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate,
however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with
another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I
questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques
were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation
methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

I guess there are different levels of "traditional" techniques - the DoJ IG report (p. 111 of 438) makes it clear that the FBI had concerns about the CIA-led approach from the outset, with one of the agents describing it as "borderline torture".

What "borderline torture" techniques are we talking about? The DoJ IG report has redactions, but this is from David Johnston, writing in the Sept 10 2006 Times:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — Abu Zubaydah, the first Osama bin Laden henchman captured by the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was bloodied and feverish when a C.I.A.
security team delivered him to a secret safe house in Thailand for
interrogation in the early spring of 2002. Bullet fragments had ripped
through his abdomen and groin during a firefight in Pakistan several
days earlier when he had been captured.

The events that unfolded at the safe house over the next few weeks
proved to be fateful for the Bush administration. Within days, Mr.
Zubaydah was being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques — he
was stripped, held in an icy room and jarred by earsplittingly loud
music — the genesis of practices later adopted by some within the
military, and widely used by the Central Intelligence Agency in
handling prominent terrorism suspects at secret overseas prisons.

The Times returned to Zubaydah last week and apparently believed that the unenhanced enhanced techniques were controversial:

His interrogation, according to multiple accounts, began in
Pakistan and continued at the secret C.I.A. site in Thailand, with a
traditional, rapport-building approach led by two F.B.I. agents, who
even helped care for him as his gunshot wounds healed.

Abu Zubaydah gave up perhaps his single most valuable piece of information early, naming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom he knew as Mukhtar, as the main organizer of the 9/11 plot.

A C.I.A. interrogation
team that arrived a week or two later, which included former military
psychologists, did not change the approach to questioning, but began to
keep him awake night and day with blasting rock music, have his clothes
removed and keep his cell cold.

The legal basis for this
treatment is uncertain, but lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters were in
constant touch with interrogators, as well as with Mr. Bybee’s
subordinate in the Office of Legal Counsel, John C. Yoo, who was drafting memos on the legal limits of interrogation.

Well. One hopes the actual interrogations were done in compliance with FBI guidelines, even if the treatment of the prisoner was "enhanced" a bit on an extra-curricular basis outside of the interrogation room. From the May 30 2005 memo (p. 94 of 124) I infer that the proponents of enhanced techniques scored this as a win for their techniques. And since per the DoJ IG report the FBI withdrew its agents in May and June because of the harsh CIA techniques, we are left wondering just what sort of "traditional" FBI interrogation Mr. Soufan normally conducts.

Switching gears, let me summarize the argument offered by Ms. Wheeler and enthusiastically endorsed by Andrew Sullivan. The OLC legal opinion offered by Bybee included the caveat that "The interrogation team is certain that he has additional information that he refuses to divulge" and warns that

We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession
contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to
these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not
necessarily apply.

To continue the argument, the interrogations were taking place with both FBI and CIA agents present; therefore, the CIA had to know, as Mr. Soufan did, that the prisoner was cooperating; therefore, the legal opinion is based on a false premise and collapses. Or so says Ms. Wheeler, with a strong second from Sully.

To which I say, well, maybe, if the Inspector General and the Times reporting is all wrong. The Johnston 2006 story included this:

After Mr. Zubaydah’s capture, a C.I.A. interrogation team was
dispatched from the agency’s counterterrorism center to take the lead
in his questioning, former law enforcement and intelligence officials
said, and F.B.I. agents were withdrawn. The group included an agency
consultant schooled in the harsher interrogation procedures to which
American special forces are subjected in their training. Three former
intelligence officials said the techniques had been drawn up on the
basis of legal guidance from the Justice Department, but were not yet
supported by a formal legal opinion.

In Thailand, the new C.I.A. team concluded that under standard
questioning Mr. Zubaydah was revealing only a small fraction of what he
knew, and decided that more aggressive techniques were warranted.

At times, Mr. Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and
placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the
bare floor, sometimes with air-conditioning adjusted so that, one
official said, Mr. Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the
interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red
Hot Chili Peppers. Sometimes, the interrogator would use simpler
techniques, entering his cell to ask him to confess.

“You know what I want,” the interrogator would say to him, according
to one official’s account, departing leaving Mr. Zubaydah to brood over
his answer.

F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive
approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded.
But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that
tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been
authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

Mr. Soufan says that "I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August." As we have seen, something like harsh techniques were already in place. But what happened in July? This high value target of so much attention was left to rock out to the Red Hot Chili Peppers while shivering in his underwear? Probably not. Based on the DoJ IG report the Times story is roughly accurate.

If Mr. Soufan is credible at all then there were divisions within the original CIA team, some members were convinced a tougher approach was warranted, and Bybee was working with them. Or perhaps after the fact some CIA officials involved in the interrogation decided that someone else must have been responsible. CYA at the CIA. Go figure.

And do note that ater the fact the FBI team may have been absolutely correct in their assessment of Zubaydah's compliance but that does not mean that the CIA people requested the legal guidance in bad faith.

MORE ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT:

Mr. Soufan makes an interesting claim in his op-ed:

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the
message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director,
that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by
the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report
released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

Well, if the DoJ Inspector General's report is reliable, the Soufan story is full of holes. Starting at p. 110 of 438, we see that two FBI agents, Gibson and Thomas (pseudonyms) were involved in the Zubaydah interrogation.

The CIA showed up and took over quickly. Thomas had objections to their techniques, which he described as "borderline torture", and left somewhat thereafter. Gibson was authorized (or instructed) to leave but hung around until early June, several weeks after Thomas left. So let's tentatively infer from that that "Gibson" is Mr. Soufan (the story hardly changes if "Thomas" is Soufan.)

The first and most important point is that the FBI was troubled by the CIA techniques from the outset, not only after August 1. The current op-ed imagines that there was a long period of "traditional" interrogation, but that is contradicted by the IG report.

Secondly, per page 111, "Gibson", (probably Mr. Soufan), told the CIA was told by the CIA upon their arrival that Zubaydah was only providing "throwaway" information and that they "needed to diminish his capacity to resist". Thomas expressed concern about the CIA techniques, calling them "border-line torture"; "Gibson" "did not express as much concern" as Thomas. From which we conclude that somebody from the FBI CIA side thought that more could be gleaned from Zubaydah.

When "Gibson" got home he told FBI Counter terrorism AD D'Amuro that he had no moral qualms about the CIA approach, that they were behaving professionally, and that he had endured similar treatment in SERE school.

Well. If Mr. Soufan is Thomas, then there were obvious divisions even within the FBI; if he is Gibson, there are apparent divisions within himself.

Eventually, after a series of meetings in Washington, the FBI learned about the OLC opinion and decided to withdraw from the enhanced interrogation process.

OOPS: When I summarized the IG report above I had the CIA calling for tougher treatment (as did the Johnston story), but in the version directly above I had "Gibson" of the FBI making that suggestion, which is both wrong and irrelevant.

Comments

We need to develop an enhanced interrogation method that is much more effective than waterboarding. If KSM really met with water 138 times (which I don't believe), then it clearly was not severe enough.

per page 111, "Gibson", (probably Mr. Soufan), told the CIA upon their arrival that Zubaydah was only providing "throwaway" information and that they "needed to diminish his capacity to resist".

Tom, you're blatantly misrepresenting what the OIG report said. Here's the text from the report:

Within a few days, CIA personnel assumed control over the interviews, although they asked Gibson and Thomas to observe and resist. Gibson told the OIG that the CIA interrogators said Zubaydah was only providing "throw-away information" and that they needed to diminish his capacity to resist.

(Emphasis added.) Is the problem with your integrity, or with your reading comprehension?

Goodness, I hope that this wasn't brought to our attention by one of those folks who thought that CIA agents were holier that Jesus Mary and Joseph combined during "L'Affaire Plame"

I guess that the intended implication is that the CIA interrogators were LIARS.

Hmmm.

But explain this. Why were only 3 of the A-Q terrorists subjected to WBding, and only a relatively small percentage subjected to any enhanced interrogation at all? If they were just routinely doing this to all of them, just to see what they would come up with, maybe "Gibson" would have a slightly more believable case.

But that's not what happened.

I would say, that all things considered, the CIA Interrogators were correct in their assumptions. Especially since KSM was not captured til March 1 2003.

And your attempt to tar TM with a cherry-picking charge is pretty lame.

The narrative that Soufan is trying to argue was that everything was fine till the CIA got involved, But I don't see that, Cloonan, in particular, holds out the exampe of Jamal Al Fadl, yet he wasn't a hardcore operative. The Justice Department
interviewed Ali Mohammed in 1993, this was
one of those Fitz specials, and they let him go, so he could scout out the Embassies
for the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. and when he was detained, he didn't give up the planning behind 9/11; some say the tips included in the December '98 and Aug. 01
PDBs were important, but one could equally
say they were off point, leaving out the direct use of planes as weapons, instead of the more innocuous trade for hostages. The one plot that was disrupted was that follow up plot against NY City, in '93, but that
didn't involve any new operatives. The August PDB has about the same validity of the DHS memo, which didn't name groups, persons, rank of memberships of said
veterans, but just ideological affiliations

On another front, it seems that the Valerie Plame affair has officially moved to fiction, unlike the unofficial story that we already knew was fiction. Whitley Strieber, crazy "Aliens are Coming" and one of the first progenitors of global warming
hysteria in "Nature Day" has a very harrowing take on Islamic nuclear terrorism,
"Critical Mass" that is ultimately flawed by confused plotting and ideological incoherence (I give it a thumbs up) but he harps on Brester Jennings, and the Plame affair, suggesting this vile crime, would lead to this disaster

Can you see what a zoo Congressional hearings would be now? HEH--Why they'd even drive pics of Michelle tending garden and the pooch off the front pp as liars contradict eachother and half wit journos work hard at "making a difference."

"F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded."

Persuade them to do what exactly?

FBI to terrorist: "If you tell us the truth about the stage two plot, or any future plot germinating in that empty cavity between your eyes we promise you'll be treated just like a US citizen and not a scumbag murdering POS? Can we persuade you to tell all? What can we do to persuade you to tell us everything you know? If we don't waterboard you will you bend over for us? We can try and torture you but we'd rather persuade you to just tattle on your terrorist brothers?

That's going to produce better results than forcing them to suck down some water, albeit they end up liking it enough to tough it out 183 times?

based upon the pettiness of so many of the points made by some of the critics so far, I am deeply concerned that the clownocracy is going to try and usurp power based upon innuendo, half truths, and bogus statistics.

When a cross section of the intelligence community speaks out, the president had better listen. Otherwise, we will be seeing mass resignations in the intelligence community as under Carter.We have Leahy, Pelosi, Axelrod, Emmanuel et al positioning this as a criminal conspiracy when clearly it falls under policy differences. 3 subjects the extensive discussions and decision making process that went into their interrogations, does not a policy make. These were extraordinary decisions demanded by extraordinary events.

based upon the pettiness of so many of the points made by some of the critics so far, I am deeply concerned that the clownocracy is going to try and usurp power based upon innuendo, half truths, and bogus statistics.

It's just as plain as day. They know the evidence goes against them, so they are trying to distract with little insignificant sideline points.

And I still want to know who is currently employing Arab-American ex-FBI agent Ali Soufan.Very little on the net, which makes my spidy senses tingle. I'm not pointing fingers (yet) but there is a certain stench about all this.

We already have the absolute confirmation of Dennis Blair, Obama's NSA chief, remember.

Someone at the NAtion wrote a piece agreeing with my view--the story was being leaked by those who want to keep the AIPAC case going and wanted to find a way to pressure Holder into doing so. There must be come CIPer types still in the bowels. Just sayin..

Okay, I don't have enough time to develop it into a full theory (writing for $$$ again) but here's the thought that has occurred to me: Harman is the one person on the intelligence Committee who is said to have actually objected to some of the surveillance and interrogation techniques in writing.

My theory is that this is pre-emptively trying to reduce her credibility before she tells the world that Pelosi, Hoyer, and (please God) Lehey knew and approved in 2002.

Brother. I think I'm at my limit on this subject. I'm just not enough of a civilized elite or deep thinker. For me it's just not an issue. Do whatever it takes to jack these guys up - regardless if it works. Otherwise be prepared for the consequences.

The CYA going on by both sides is depressing. I wanted to believe the people in those jobs would, at times, have to do the necessary to get the job done and protect us. Instead they are turning out to be a bunch of whiney crybabies. And the ones that got the job done, or even tried are being vilified by even bigger weenies such as Gleen and Sully. Sickening.

If a reporter with real credentials should read this, and he/she is someone who is actually reporting and not just "making a difference'(running with Dem talking points),I suggest he contact these former agents to see what they say when asked if they weren't in fact the source of the Harman leaks:
Pat Lang (ex DIA); Scheuer (ex CIA and author of Anonymous),David Szady (ex FBI and now martial arts promoter).

the multinationals are just gaming the system as they always do, bad. Give them an opportunity, and some MBA will figure out how to bend the rules and make a profit, even if it means leaving someone else to hold the bag years later. I'm sure GE also made billions off the housing/mortgage crisis as well.

I can only assume someone is mightily P.O.ed at Harman about something. And I don't think it's a GOPer. That would be the fabulous Nancy P. of the double-digit IQ, who was Minority Ranking on the Intell Cte. that signed the 9/11 Comm. Report. She got Reyes, another dimwit like herself, as Cte. Chief after the Dems won in '06, though Harman had seniority & the brains to run it well.

Jane just went to the gala inauguration of a new Think Tank with Robert Kagan, the scourge of flakey libs, as the Senior Member. Maybe that helped stoke the nefarious plotting to "get" Jane once & for all. A Pelosi mole on the CQ? Could it be?

-- Bill O'Reilly on Glen Beck says GE, parent company of NBC, the Obama network, has set up a division to profit from Cap-and-Trade. --

All substantial corporations invest in influencing the government. If/when they get big enough (e.g., Federal Reserve), they effectively LEAD the government. And even if they think they're leading the government, but they aren't, they take stock of the political/war winds and position to profit from the unfolding of history.

What's sobering is to realize that patriotism is "for the little guy."

It's a tough call, specially having tried to have a civil argument with Yglesias, and ending up in the argument clinic. He's seriously entertained the idea, that WW 2 wasn't all that necessary. But Klein is so wrong on everything consistently, thanks to all the items TM reads so we don't have to; they're all journolisters and don't have an original thought in their body (Joe Klein, Noam Schreiber, Greg Sargent, et al)